User talk:Abyssinia H/Archive 2

I don't know what your problem is but I was CORRECTING Daunte Culpepper's page, which had been incorrectly edited with unsourced information that he had signed with the New Orleans Saints, which he has not. Please do not revert this edit as the previous one (which stated he had signed in New Orleans) was not correct.

I didn't revert that edit as you provided a sound reason in the edit summary and all looked perfectly fine. I did revert other previous edits you made (and so did several other editors doing RC patrol) that appeared to be defamatory toward the subject of the article. If those edits were introduced in error when you reverted other changes, then I apologize for any offense caused, as I was only looking at your edits, not the entire history. Zachlipton (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Zachlipton. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Prentice School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Copyvios have been cleaned up. Is OK now. Thank you. GedUK  08:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Splendid! An even better result. Zachlipton (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

While you are correct that this article is not a copyright issue if it is from a public domain source (such as a federal government work), it does still need to clearly establish that it is copied from such sources or it remains a problem under WP:PLAGIARISM. Just thought you should know. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure your reversion of Esoglou's edit was a good-faith attempt to correct what you perceived to be vandalism. However, if you look at the Esoglou's edit summary, what he was trying to say was that the words "you must be joking!" were a verbatim quote from the cited source. While it is acceptable to drop words from a quote, the removed words should be replaced by an ellipsis (i.e. "..."). You may think doing this would be appropriate but before insisting on this, please discuss it on the article's Talk Page. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct sir. Good catch. It certainly did look like vandalism when I was just looking at the diff, and his edit summary "(this is a quotation)" makes sense to me now, but didn't register to me as anything meaningful at the time. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

One more thing... it is considered good form to look carefully before templating the regulars. Actually, the advice is: don't template the regulars. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... I only templated because I using Wikipedia:STiki to work through many potentially suspect edits quickly, and templating is done by the tool by default. The fact that I was in STiki also prevented me from noticing that Esoglou was a regular, which I likely would have seen if I was looking at the normal diff view. Of course, I realize I'm responsible for my edits whether I'm using a tool or not, but you can see how someone unfamiliar with the source material would see the edit as a vandal editorializing in the article. In any event, I'll apologize to Esoglou on his/her talk page. Thanks again. Zachlipton (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK... no problem. My first reaction was "What the...? Esoglou wrote that?" and only after some digging did I realize what had happened. Your mistake was understandable. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Zachlipton. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Elmhurst Primary School 959, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: schools not eligible for A7. Thank you.  7  06:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Bah that's right. My mistake. I was focusing the "elementary schools are generally not notable unless there's evidence to the contrary" policy and failed to consider the speedy criteria. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I had a hard time convincing my instructor that this would be a valid subject for my paper. Now, I am having an even more difficult time convincing Ms. Morgan that I am serious about an interview and not just some guy chasing her down. I am trying to find out more about how it all started… the history. I want to also include more information about the technology that was used to create it. I can include this information in my paper and I believe it would also be useful on Wikipedia. I found some more reference links and added them. I took a look at my lead in paragraph and made some minor changes. Then I compared it to the ones on the Second Life and Red Light Center pages. Let me know if you think it still sounds like an advertisement.

I am new to the contributor side of Wikipedia and your help has been valuable. Darnel Franklin (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I want to redirect users from the "Professor Ali" page over to "Professor_Ali_(Producer)" but I got an error: The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions: * Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dldudley444 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not sure offhand why this is being restricted, but I would follow the instructions given: post on the Administrators' Noticeboard and an admin will be able to help you with your request. Please note that as it stands, the article Professor Ali does very little to assert the notability of its subject and may be subject to deletion. I encourage you to read WP:MUSIC for our notability policies for musicians and to consider whether this individual meets the criteria. If so, you probably should add additional links to reliable sources to bolster your claim of notability. Otherwise, I'm afraid that Professor Ali is not suitable for a Wikipedia entry at this time, but certainly could be the subject of one in the future when he meets the criteria. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Zachlipton (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

If you think removal of the sole External link from Elmer S Gish School is appropriate, no problemo. I don't agree, per WP:ELNO, and I don't see WP:NOTE referenced in WP:ELNO, but I'm happy to discuss it here or the talk page. However, given that you believe it is an inappropriate link, should not the now-empty "External Links" section also be deleted, per WP:EL? Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Joe. I honestly don't think it's a particularly big deal either way. I just happened to notice the edit in my watchlist (I think I had reverted some vandalism from that article previously) and saw that the link was to an old newsletter, so I thought it didn't really belong. Certainly, WP:ELNO and WP:N are different policies, but I didn't think the newsletter was really of great use to the article. Why not link to every issue of the newsletter then? If anything, they seem to have more recent newsletters, but I don't think updating wikipedia every time the school releases a new newsletter is a great long-term solution. You are right about removing the section if it's empty. If you feel strongly that the link should be there, go ahead and put it back, as I don't personally care very much about the issue anyway. Otherwise, removing the empty section is a good plan too. In short, feel free to do whatever you want with it :) Happy editing! Zachlipton (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Coolness. I noticed the article while doing NPP, and rather than CSD'ing it, updated it as best I could (which is how I found, and then added, that one and only online link to a newsletter - I'm glad you found some more, but you have a point!), and left a note on the original author's Talk page. Interestingly, it is that author who's only edits have been to that article, and who removed the link. I think I'll leave the article be overnight, and see if that editor makes a subsequent change (they're new, and I don't want to confuse them). If not, I'll remove the empty section. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

♠TomasBat 20:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What a nice surprise! Thank you very much :) Zachlipton (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Truth is to verify. Definitions are verified BY truth therefore your "core policy" is mangled if in fact your statement is TRUE. Ok, moving on; thank-you for taking the time to reply in such detail, I do realize you must be very busy. We have a problem.

1.Problem You wrote: "Note that Biblical citations are primary sources; secondary sources would be commentary by a prominent scholar."

Please explain what authority I should consult to find this "prominent scholar" you speak of. There is not one according to the book I use who is qualified that you would recognize as being "prominent". What reference can be sure outside the 40+ men and women whose work comprises the bible anyway who will make due as qualified; I will be happy to enquire of them and yet I will explain that according to the verifiable source of Christianity (the Bible), that there are none qualified outside of that book. Furthermore, my definitions are really simple and common sense knowledge based on 6th grade level English and usage as should be; not everyone can comprehend past 9th Grade reading (according to Texas G.E.D. preparation standards; State of Texas (do I need to find the citation for that source?)) and we don't want to leave out the young students who have not even reached the 9th grade yet... "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." Luke 18:16 KJV

He is stating FACT here and God is His verifiable source to this statement according to 1jn. 5:7 below, what further verifiable source are you going to require of Him?

"1Jo:5:7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Not like I'm preaching but I AM citing: Are these not reliable SECONDARY sources? LET ACCURACY PREVAIL!!! 04:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkdemers (talk • contribs)

Replied on your talk page. Zachlipton (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please understand, I'm not here trying to indoctrinate or push any views of anything but I AM here to help by pointing out ERROR and helping people get the WHOLE story instead of someone's watered-down version cause instead of calling a gun a WEAPON they want to call it a "protection device". Man, SOMEONE has to stand up for what our fathers died for which was being able to enjoy access to knowledge and freedom from a states oppression by suppression of information and perversion of facts.

Below is my very own definition of the word "dictionary", NOT my opinion, not my INTERPRETATION or just the way I see it... I used the exact same principle in defining terms that I found here on WP that needed work and I happen to know in depth their CORRECT definitions.

Dictionary: A book of or list of words usually in alphabetical order that gives their meaning(s); usually containing details of a words origin sometimes giving examples of it's usage and a summary of it's evolution.

My definitions never imply any doctrine, teaching or idea etc... Miriam Webster made a book of definitions, in my definition above I don't say His is best or not as good but I give it like it is. JUST for here though I will go as far as to state another fact about ol' Webster that might make someone angry; "He didn't know it all". But this kind of activity I have refrained from IN MY WORK knowing that would taint it. My definitions are correct and I must defend them because what is there is either mis-leading, lacking or just flat out INCORRECT.

Another fact and this one doesn't need any verification; future generations will suffer greatly from our ignorance.

Thank-you for your time Zach I'm tired now. LET ACCURACY PREVAIL!!! 06:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkdemers (talk • contribs)

This definition contains errors, sir.

A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion "period" <--fact

that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity. <---not fact.

Thats why they are denominations, because they do not operate the same. It's not about POV it's about fact. Fact is part two of the definition is incorrect, there is no support for this statement and it is not even clear. Sir. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkdemers (talk • contribs) 10:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zachlipton. Thanks for pointing out my mistake in citations for Malati Dasi. Answered your AfD nomination for Malati Dasi there. See if this is better now. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Zachlipton, could you please consider revisiting AfD Malati Dasi listed by you under AfD due to my mistake that has long been corrected, with your other concerns addressed adequately. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You tagged this page as db-person. The page is an attack on the subject. It clearly falls as db-attack instead of db-person. This is important because db-attack is a quicker CSD than normal. Also, it more appropriately warns the user. Please be sure to read the content of articles before you tag them.--v/r - TP 20:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I can't see the article anymore since it's been deleted, but if memory serves me right, when I saw it the page just said something like "Joseph Nooger is gay and was born on (date) and goes to (school)." Since the author's username contained "Joe," I figured it could have been an autobiography and thought I'd AGF and not tag it as an attack, which would be pretty hurtful if an openly gay kid actually named Joe tried to make an article about himself. If the user added more attacks to the page after I saw it, then obviously it should have been retagged as db-attack, but I didn't go back and reexamine the page between when I tagged it and when it was deleted. It's entirely possible I misread the situation too, but I didn't see anything that led me to believe this was a clear personal attack. Thanks and happy editing! Zachlipton (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL, you end your messages like I usually do "Thanks and happy editing". But on topic, it's generally best to ignore AGF when there are unsourced negative BLP issues and play it on the safe side which protects Wikipedia against libel.--v/r - TP 23:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I sometimes do end my messages that way yes :) Certainly I agree with you in general, but since the only potentially negative comment I saw was the phrase "is gay" and I thought this could well be an autobiography, I didn't want to attack the editor for writing about himself. When I see negative unsourced BLPs that are more clearly negative, I do tag them as attacks and act and warn accordingly. Again, in this case it looks like the user probably added more negative content after I first tagged the page, which would explain the situation. In any event, happy editing :) Zachlipton (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright fair enough. I suppose I hear "gay" used most as a derogatory term and tend to associate it with an insult. In any case, your opinion is just as valid as mine and I respect your choice. Happy editing!--v/r - TP 00:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol! you've been conditioned by the trolls! ;P -- œ^™ 10:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! Much appreciated :) And many thanks for your blocks and deletions last night. 15:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I Think that he is a significant person do to his job which is political in nature. I don't Know why you want to delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuyraisgood (talk • contribs) 16:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• That's great. I nominated the page for speedy deletion because it did not assert the importance of its subject and did not cite reliable sources for its notability. I personally have no problem with this individual, but the article simply didn't meet our guidelines. I highly recommend you read Wikipedia:Your first article and create a draft of your article first (instructions are in that document and the Wikipedia:Article wizard will help you. If you can show sources for the notability of this person, feel free to create a new article. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia! Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Zachlipton (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking at your account, I see you have been blocked for vandalism. You'll need to discuss that matter with the administrator who blocked you first. I don't remember the specific content of the entry you created, so I can't say how suitable it was as a topic for Wikipedia, but creating nonsense articles will get you reblocked in the event that you are unblocked. Zachlipton (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Zachlipton! I noticed that my article on Women Preachers was deleted under copyright violations. But the problem is, it's not a violation - I am the original author. I posted it under the believe that historical/contextual/scriptural backing should be included in any topic that is of concern to the church, especially when so many people across the globe look to Wikipedia to provide them with relevant information on the issues that matter to them.

And yes, it has been spread across the internet. People are intrigued and eager to hear more about a subject that has become quite personal to many of them. When anyone is faced with opposition as to why they should not follow their dreams, I believe they should be able to stand their ground, and not be subject to what other people say should and should not be done. Especially when there is overwhelming evidence in favor of what they are doing.

Which is why you may have noted on the link that was provided in the report (here: Women Preachers ) 

that in the very beginning it says, "Please pass on for free!" I have allowed for anyone who wishes to, to pass it along to others. I do not believe that anyone should have to pay to know more about history. Don't you agree?

I do believe it's quite sad that a post about historical facts and ancient words/text is considered a POV article and furthermore, a soapbox, when this site is all about bringing to light the issues that face our world today, without bias of what the topic is about. If the part about KJV being the most accurate translation of the Bible is going to be problematic, I would be pleased to reword it for you.

I would like to humbly request that my post is re-instated, as the original author, and a fellow human being who believes that anyone who wishes to have knowledge, should have it freely.

Kind regards.

Ph.D. Theologian.

PhDofTHEOLOGY (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. The copyright issues are significant, but it wasn't really the only issue here:

• Copyright: It's great that you wrote this and people have so widely copied it, but there's a difference between saying "please pass on for free" and contributing text to Wikipedia. First of all, we have no way of knowing that you are the original copyright owner unless you go through our process to demonstrate that. Secondly, text on Wikipedia is under a special license. To contribute text, you need to explicitly agree to license it under those terms, to ensure that Wikipedia remains free for everyone. If we find the same material elsewhere on the web that does not explicitly adopt compatible license terms (or is in the public domain), we will assume that it is a copyright violation in order to protect the rights of the original author and to avoid legal difficulties for the encyclopedia.
• But that's not really the main problem with your article. The primary issue is that it was an essay, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia per What Wikipedia is Not. We compile existing information in a neutral way. We do not publish opinion pieces. You are welcome to publish and distribute your opinions on your own website, as you have done, and I wish you success in that endeavor, but your essay is simply unencyclopedic in tone and style.
• Furthermore, your article constituted original research because it developed your own conclusions based on primary source documents. Avoiding original research is one of our core policies. Specifically, you "synthesis of published material that advances a position". It is perfectly acceptable to cite published articles in reliable sources by theologians that analyze text, but Wikipedians cannot draft their own interpretations of primary sources.
• Finally, your article duplicates an existing topic: Ordination of women (the subject is also addressed in less depth in Clergy. On Wikipedia, we try to create one article per topic and do not create multiple articles for the same concept unless it is necessary to split up a large or complex article into smaller sub-articles. The existing article discusses the topic from the viewpoints of many different religions and relies on over 240 published sources. Even with that, it's nowhere near our featured article status and needs improvement. Many sections of that article also link to more detailed articles on the topic, such as Catholic Church doctrine on the ordination of women, [[Female rabbis], and Ordination of women in the Anglican Communion. Your article duplicates a subject best handled within these existing articles.

So you are absolutely welcome to edit and improve Ordination of women and other articles on the subject, but you should refrain from introducing original research and synthesis. Factual statements should WP:CITE a reliable source. Any edits that do not meet these guidelines may be reverted by another editor. I also highly suggest you discuss potentially controversial edits first on the article's talk page so you can develop a consensus with other editors.

I hope this helps explain things. Thanks and feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Zachlipton (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zachlipton. Thank you for deleting vandalism by 68.44.137.48, 174.89.30.208, and others, off my talk page and other pages. All the best, --Unforgettableid (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

'Tis what I often do. Happy to help. Thanks, Zachlipton (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Context reflux. The reason I declined it is because it's not clear that this is a hoax - it could quite posibly be a term used in some company. I do thnk that the page should be deleted (note that I left the PROD tag) - I just think that speedy G3 is the wrong way to go with it. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah I saw you did that and I figured that was your reasoning. I tagged it as a hoax because I couldn't find a single relevant google hit for the term besides the article in question and the article made no assertion of notability. I'll agree it's likely not within the letter of speedy G3 and that I was going for expediency, but I'll let the PROD run its course. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you have lots of badges which, as I see, does not help much not to be a mindless eraser. Good luck with erasing and collecting titles anddécors. Genezistan (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well I'm sorry you feel that way. I tagged your entry for proposed deletion (note that I didn't request speedy deletion, but merely proposed deletion in the hope that the article could be improved in the next week) because it is an essay. It cites no reliable sources (or any sources for that matter) and constitutes original research. This violates our policies. It also states opinions, rather than presenting facts in a neutral way. You are perfectly welcome to write such material and distribute it on your own blog or web site, but Wikipedia can only accept entries that are encyclopedic in nature, well referenced, and otherwise comply with our guidelines. Thanks. As a sidenote, while I'm always happy when someone recognizes my work, I'm not here for the "badges." Zachlipton (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

All I can say that what I wrote was simple common sense, you do not need to research on paradoxes, unless you want to resolve them. That entry was red in the article on recursion, I did not want to write anything on such a stupid phrase, you passed that despite your scrutiny for existence there for who knows how long. If the editors are not sane enough to sue common sense, what do you expect? Well, nothing, but labelling as if the whole wikipedia were a better organised place through such a compulsive classification.

My passages do not pass for an essay neither are they original work, so I do not like your tags at all. But since this is a highly authoritarian medium, I do not care, you get what you want, you deserve to see the advent of a new wikipedia type of collective intelligence based on compatible units of entries free from nonsense just because they were once published. I am out again. Genezistan (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

All right then. Goodbye. Zachlipton (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could tell my why you dispute the neutrality of the page Jarrod Glover and why you dispute it's notability?Enidblyton11 (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Sure. To begin with, I would review WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, which describe the subject of neutrality in some detail.

First, I don't necessarily dispute the neutrality per se. My point is really that your assertions are not backed by cited sources because the article states facts that are not given in the one source. Especially in biographies of living people, Wikipedia is very careful to avoid unsourced statements, especially if they are negative in nature. Citing multiple reliable sources is also needed to satisfy the notability guideline.

Here's an example: you say he was "caught distributing racist material." While the material is certainly reprehensible, a more neutral way of phrasing that would be: "he distributed pamphlets that ABC News described as 'portraying some African refugees as sub-human and violent.'" Furthermore, the one source you cited doesn't mention Glover at all, so there's nothing to back up your assertion that he had anything to do with this. If negative information about living people cannot be backed by published sources, it needs to be removed from Wikipedia. Since there was an official investigation, citations should be easily obtainable for this.

Or another example: "he was expelled from the NSW Liberal Party after making racist statements." Here, it's your judgement that the statements were racist. It's not that they weren't racist, but you're asserting racism by yourself, which is an opinion and not neutral. Without a source, we have no way to verify this opinion. For all we know, he was expelled from the party after making ham sandwiches or maybe he was never expelled from the party at all. It would be fine if you quoted or cited a party official who said he was expelled for racist statements.

In short, Wikipedia can't just call someone a racist. We compile information from various sources and can report their accusations, but our editorial voice is neutral. Certainly, any rational reader can come to a reasonable conclusion about this man if presented with the facts.

I hope this helps clarify things. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Zachlipton (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've fixed a few things, but I'm a new user. Could you check the page and tell me if anything needs to be done? ThanksEnidblyton11 (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for wanting to improve this. To start, I would use inline citations. WP:CITE is a long document with tons of information about citations, but the information at the very beginning of the article should cover all you need to know for now. Place citations after specific facts stated in the article. You can look at a featured article like, say, John Lerew and see its extensive use of citations (except in the introduction, which is simply a summary of facts stated later in the article). In other words, how do we know he was born in Newcastle? What source says he grew up in Islington? These are less controversial facts (though they should be sourced), but the more bold statements should definitely have citations.

Also, your news.com.au link doesn't seem to work, and I'm not really sure of the significance of the handsoffourhomes.com.au link. His name does appear, but the mere fact that he (or someone with the same name as him) signed a petition isn't particularly significant and it's not reflected in the article. Cheers. Zachlipton (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added a few more refernces, including info about him from anti-racist group fightdemback. He also has a blog: http://onenationconservativenation.blogspot.com/

In this blog he states he lives in Newcastle. Enidblyton11 (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if this is redundant...I'm still new to wikipedia, but I sent you a message. Thanks, Mounir

Hi Mounir. I got your email about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Talal Nsouli, but I'm going to respond here as most Wikipedians usually have these types of discussions on their talk pages instead of privately. I hope this is alright.

As I mentioned in my comments on that page, the article as submitted had several problems. Let's address the copyright issues first, as you raised questions about those in your email. The article did not comply with our WP:COPYRIGHT policy because it contained information found elsewhere on the web without evidence of permission. In order to fully respect the rights of copyright owners (and to protect the project), we presume that most text online is subject to copyright unless otherwise specified. Such text is subject to rapid removal from Wikipedia. If you own the rights to the text and wish to make it freely available for anyone to copy and modify, including for commercial use, you need to fill out the template at WP:CONSENT and email it to [1] from an email address associated with the original publication. Or you can place a similar declaration on your website along with the text. Then just be sure to include a note in your Articles for Creation submission that you've sent such a permission email. However, please read on before doing this.

Secondly, the article did not WP:CITE (see that article for more information on how to cite sources) any third party reliable sources. To be included in Wikipedia, subjects must have received substantial coverage in third party reliable sources in order to establish their notability and to provide for the verifiability of the article. See WP:N and WP:V for more information on these policies. Note that these sources must be "third party" sources, e.g. not affiliated with the subject of the article. The subject's own biography doesn't count. We're talking about things like published newspaper or periodical articles, scholarly articles from reliable journals and publishers, books, etc...

Thirdly, the article took an overly promotional tone. Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view and do not serve as advertisements for their subjects. In particular, we seek to avoid "peacock terms" that are promotional in nature and not backed by appropriate sourcing. In contrast, personal biographies are written precisely to promote their subjects. As such, a professional's standard biography will almost never be suitable to be copied into Wikipedia (though it may be cited along with third-party sources to supply limited details). Your article described an award as "prestigious" and noted Mr. Nsouli's award "in recognition of his tireless efforts on behalf of the American College of Allergy." These are examples of an encyclopedic tone. Furthermore, Wikipedia articles generally focus more on things someone has done rather than the awards and honors they have received. This article is mostly a list of titles and awards, rather than a biography of actual works by this person.

Finally and really most importantly, it is clear that you have a conflict of interest regarding this article, as you seem to represent Mr. Nsouli in some capacity. Our guidelines state that editors should generally avoid editing in areas where they have a conflict of interest. This is especially the case when creating articles in an employee-employer relationship. The community generally feels that such articles require near complete rewriting, and many such articles are deleted. I encourage you to read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, which is designed to answer questions people have in your situation. In particular, please see questions 6 and 7 on that page.

Also, one other thing you should be aware of. (I know there's a lot!) Our username policy states: "Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name." Your username is "Dr. Nsouli," but you seem to be "Mounir." As such, I would ask that if you're going to edit again, you create a new account that does not contain the real name of another person. User accounts cannot represent organizations or corporations or anyone other than an individual editor.

Whew, that's a bunch of information to throw at you. I hope this clarifies things. Feel free to let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of your disabiguation edits were incorrect (for Nostoc and Geosiphon). There is no relevant article for disambiguation of the former usage. I have added the appropriate sense to the disambiguation, but have not linked it, since a separate article about the subject is not likely. There needs to be some sort of article about the organization of tissues in plants and algae. For the latter, the correct link is the Hypha option listed on the disambiguation page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Thank you. I quickly realized I was in over my head on that particular disambiguation project and I backed out, but obviously I made a few errors before that. Thanks for the heads up. Zachlipton (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zachlipton, I see you recently uploaded File:Spit-Like-This.jpg in the public domain, following a FFU request. However, please note that this file is not in the public domain, because as you can read here, the file was released only for 'non-profit' use, which contravenes to all free licenses, and especially PD. Thanks for taking a look and taking the appropriate action. [CharlieEchoTango] 03:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks CharlieEchoTango. I don't know how I missed that note. I guess I was too caught up in the PD tag they posted on FFU. I'll see if I can reach the appropriate people. Zachlipton (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

For everyone's reference, a representative of the band emailed OTRS and granted full PD permission for the use of the image. All fixed. Zachlipton (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem.   — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, you have obviously not been to Vang Vieng recently, if at all. If you have been recently, then you have not been previously , say 10 years ago to compare it then and now subjectively. Hence my comments are valid and actually more accurate than yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.188.101.65 (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't made any comments. I simply deleted your comments, because they only opinions and did not comply with our neutral point of view policy. Statements like that need to be backed by citations to reliable sources. The paragraph immediately above your additions discussed the same topic in a much more neutral way. Wikipedia articles simply cannot call a place "rubbish" unless they are directly quoting a significant person who has done so in public. Zachlipton (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi zachlipton, At no time I have I ever decribed Vang Vieng as 'rubbish' or 'disgusting. I am simply making honest, accurate comments as to the state of Vang Vieng today, and comparing it with the Vang Vieng of before. My comments are accurate. I know, because I have been there a while ago and recently. The place is now very depressing due to very large numbers of inconsiderate backpackers on the 'banana pancake' trail disrespecting the town, the people and the environment. Hence I have updated the page accurately to reflect honestly how it is today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.188.101.65 (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right, you did not use the word "disgusting." I apologize for that mischaracterization. However, you did call it "downright depressing" and "spoilt," which is pretty much the same thing from a neutrality perspective. You also called the locals "greedy," which is rather offensive to such people. My point is that Wikipedia cannot reflect your personal views on a place based on your own observations. We need to state facts from reliable published sources in a neutral way. This is one of our core policies as a community. I encourage you to hold off on these edits and discuss the issue at Talk:Vang Vieng with other editors who are interested in the topic. You are welcome to improve the article if you can cite sources and wrote from a neutral point of view, but the paragraph you keep inserting is simply unsourced defamatory opinion. You're welcome to your own opinion, and you're welcome to post it on your own website or blog, but you aren't welcome to insert it into Wikipedia articles as fact. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You think you know more about Vang Vieng than someone who has spent a long time living and working in Laos, (14 years), speaks, reads and writes Laotian and 3 separate Hill Tribe languages fluently, has spent lots of time in Vang Vieng, and has discussed extensively (in Laotian) with the village elders and locals in Vang Vieng the state of Vang Vieng today, compared with 10 years ago. The village elders and locals are disillusioned with what Vang Vieng has become, they see their village being spoilt, their children corrupted by western culture, and crime soaring as local youths, influenced by this western culture, resort to stealing, assaults and substance abuse.

But of course you know much better than me, despite that you more than likely have never even been there. But then you cant educate a fool, because they just dont listen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.188.101.65 (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In no way do I think I know more about Vang Vieng than you. In fact, I have no reason to doubt that what you say is true, and I'm certainly familiar with many wonderful places in the world being trampled by an excess of inconsiderate visitors. What I'm saying is that we can't insert our opinions into Wikipedia articles like this, especially when it comes to boldly criticizing an entire place and calling a group of people "greedy." I'm not speaking about Vang Vieng here, I'm speaking about how Wikipedia operates and our core neutrality policy. I would have the exact same concern if you inserted that information into any article. As I've said before, you are welcome to include information from published sources on the subject. Perhaps there are newspaper articles on the increase in crime in the village and disillusionment of the locals? Or papers in Sociology or Ethnography journals? That's what we're looking for here, not your own original research. Zachlipton (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Wow you are efficient. I thought I'd have a few minutes to add and straighten up. THANKS

I hope I didn't complicate your work by trying to add in while you are working. Deeply grateful for the help. I was trying to tie this to an orphan page Annette Brissett. Again nice to meet you EstherLaver (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)EstherLaver

No problem and you didn't complicate anything at all. Just saw the article in new pages and popped in to clean a few things up. Happy editing. Zachlipton (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with the article Stone House, Ooty for now. You can have look at it if you please.Regds.--Suraj T 12:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You uploaded a photo from Flickr of I-joists, but the photo is not of I-joists, and the description is vastly different from the one on Flickr. They are old solid timber joists which have sustained fire damage, not engineered lumber.

Any idea where the wires got crossed? Were you expecting the upload to be of a different photo? If so, any chance that you might root it out? JonSenior (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Something definitely went very wrong on that upload and it's certainly not what I was expecting. New image uploaded and replied at Talk:I-joist. Zachlipton (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zach, I am William Greiner the subject of the page started by philip dunham. philip had great difficulty uploading a few examples of my work, so I was trying to assist in this effort. I still do not understand what needs to be done to accomplish this? I think a few examples of my work is appropriate and warranted? I need your help to tell me exactly what I need to do to make this happen. Thank you for your time and help. Regards Wm. Greiner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.162.6 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi William. Sorry you've been having so much trouble with this. I left some information for you on Talk:William Greiner, but here's the easiest thing to do. Go to Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission and follow the instructions at the bottom half of the page. In summary, email the images you want uploaded to photosubmission@wikimedia.org. In that email, specify that the images are for the article William Greiner, that you own the copyright to all parts of the images, that you agree to license the images under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license (see below), and that you want them credited to you, William Greiner. An editor will handle your request and upload the images if all looks good.

You may select another approved license if you wish. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license is also acceptable. You could also dedicate the images to the public domain with this declaration.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions. 21:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir I thank you for your kind attention to my advice to correct a gross mistake regarding Kai-lan.I am not familiar with your procedures, so I will not take part in a discussion. If you are a collaborator of Wikipedia and want to improve it, then please report my advice. Personally I consider it odd that removing, that is, correcting a redirect doesn' belong to the section redirects.It tase a minute to click on the website of Sakata.com. Anyway, this is not my business. With my best wishes Prof.A.C. 93.43.238.196 (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article and your edits. Yes the article is an original piece. I will correct the footnotes and add additional links per your request.

Bravewell Bravewell (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! It really is a great new article. By the way, I don't want you to get the impression I was accusing you of plagiarism in any way; I just wanted to be certain as we've been burned many times before and the article was of such high quality. In any case, I look forward to seeing more. Happy editing! Zachlipton (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I've been struggling to create a page for a professional association, and I keep getting rejected. I was wondering if you could provide some more advice. In the note you offered for rejecting the current version (for the IADC), you said I needed a third party source other than the association's Web site. I tried to fashion my entry on a similar association entry that is posted to Wiki and it doesn't have a third party source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Research_Institute.

I'm finding Wiki to be quite confusing so I appreciate your help. Thanks.

Marble30 (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Zach Lipton,

Thanks for your help. You are obviously a pro at this, and I am just a beginner, trying to learn. I think I need a Tutor to "Adopt" me. Can I please email you the Bio/CV of Kimmo and let you tell me if he is worth more work? I am not related, but am sure he is famous in European art circles.

I'd ALSO like to learn about the requirements to put only a "STUB" online, so I can go onto more gratifying Contributions. The reason I added all the FinnJet info, was to support WHY he is so important. He is in major Collections across Europe in Museums and has been in many US and world exhibitions. RonRice (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

How Do I do a stub? rRonRice (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

When do you expect to answer this? RonRice (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Go to the site already and try to search. It's broken. Google needs a big 'ol slap in the yap to convince them to fix it -- contacting support has done nothing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.228.45 (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok that's fine, but you can't just add it to their Wikipedia page that way. Certainly it doesn't belong in the lead paragraph regardless. Can you cite published sources that discuss the issue? Zachlipton (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Zachlipton. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Barbara Jackman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an unambiguous copyright infringement, or there is other content to save. Thank you. nancy 10:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Please read this : Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and I add that it's better I do it as carefully as possible and look also for bad redirection(s). Regards. 204.174.87.29 (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but I'm confused. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary seems to have no connection to what you are doing. You aren't reverting anythig, but you are replacing [[children]] with [[child]]ren on dozens of pages. WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN is pretty clear that you shouldn't try to "fix" redirects when they work perfectly fine. [[children]] is not a bad redirect; it works perfectly fine. It's also not our style to only include part of a word in a link. I guess I just don't really understand what you're trying to say and why you think Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary is at all relevant to this discussion. Please explain it to me. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

you are the one that has reverted, even if I have indicated you the page that explained you not to do it here. There are many words that are with a link that cut them as long as it don't show on the user page. I suggest you ask someone with authority to solve this dispute or you simply cancel what you have done. Best. 204.174.87.29 (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the only time I can see that I reverted one of your edits is a single time several weeks ago when I asked you why you were doing the exact same thing you are doing now by changing [[parasites]] to [[parasitism|parasites]] in numerous articles. Whether I or anyone else has reverted your edits is irrelevant. You still haven't answered my question as to why you are making these edits. Zachlipton (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I clean the code even if in a minimal fashion + "I add that it's better I do it as carefully as possible and look also for bad redirection(s)" Please cancel your reverts since you are only overzealous and in final counterproductive. 204.174.87.29 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I haven't been reverting you. [[children]] is in no way shape or form a bad redirect. It redirects to child, which is the intended behavior. [[child]]ren works too, but is It doesn't matter how carefully you do it; I'm saying that it's unnecessary and specifically goes against the gudelines given in WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN. Zachlipton (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have better thing to do than fighting people like you so I placed into the discussion of the page you indicate (Wikipedia_talk:Redirect) to be improved so you can maybe understand you shouldn't do it. 204.174.87.29 (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok then. Thanks for taking this to discussion. Please don't make these types of edits until consensus has been reached on the issue. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you know which bot do this kind of corrections? As you see on my page for the last one it alerted the people in charge of the portal who are now discussing the topic. 204.174.87.29 (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  204.174.87.29:  By definition, reverting an edit that violates a rule, policy, guideline, etc., at Wikipedia is a necessary revert and therefore does not run afoul of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary (shortcut → WP:ROWN). Therefore, WP:ROWN does not apply. Moreover, were it to apply, WP:ROWN is an essay, not a rule, policy, guideline, etc., at Wikipedia: It is thus unenforceable. Consequently, the only issue left is your violation of WP:NOTBROKEN, an enforceable Wikipedia guideline. No amount of wikilawyering on your part will change that.

Zachlipton:  Please also see the discussion at User talk:204.174.87.29#"Fixing" Links to Redirects. I wanted to apprise you of it.

Thanks! — SpikeToronto 03:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)